poteroo

CASR Part 61, CASR Part 141 for sure. Trying to understand and comply with Part 61 has proven a headache for flying schools over the 4 years since it was announced. Despite CASA having allocated a 'task force' to deal with issues arising from a poorly thought out, over-the-top document - they still cannot give a clear answer to many questions. It has cost us heaps in lost time. The other costly CASA decisions have been where CASA, in its' wisdom, decides to change the rules, eg the current saga of frequency use in Class G airspace. These thought bubbles end up costing industry huge amounts in time and effort because we can't just sit on our hands and hope the CASA group will see 'sense'. We know from hard experience that unless we respond, and respond both vigorously and promptly, quite ridiculous rules become established by default. This isn't any new CASA activity. They have been fiddling with regulation for so many years that we'd laugh if it wasn't so serious. AOPA has been doing a great job and my 54 years of membership is finally paying off. Ben Morgan deserves praise from all the aviation industry for his public performances in explaining the issues. Great job! happy days,

Over the years I've done quite a few 'ferry' flights across Australia. Many times I've done more than my 'limit' of 8 hrs per day. It's unusual for me to sleep really well at some isolated location, especially if weather is blowing through and you're waking every hour thinking about the tiedown security. By the end of the 3rd day, you are functioning on about 60% of your real capacity. Things begin to slip - eg, planning is sloppy, wrong frequency used, tanks not swapped, wx has changed and your ETA has blown out by 30 mins, and landing without flap from a straight-in......just to name a few. I now try to limit the flight times, and stay grounded if wx is going to stretch my fuel too far. If I experience a micro-sleep in the air - it's a warning, so it's down to the next strip for an hours nap, or even an overnight. An extra day in Port Lincoln isn't half bad, and it can save you battling a 25kt headwind all the way to Esperance. What you could achieve as a 30yo is far, far more than what happens when you're over 70. happy days,

Nullabor Motel has only 1 strip NW/SE but often out of wind. And this place is noted for wind! It's more often than not wind or water eroded so be careful of banks of sand and sharp stones. The SW/NE 'taxiway' used to be a strip and if you are stuck with excessive x/w on the main strip - the taxiway is a usable option. Border Village is demanding if windy. Strips have only a narrow centre section and outside that is sharp limestone rock. Keep strictly to the centre of the E-W strip. The N-S strip has a lot of regrowth in parts, is narrow too, and seems to be kangaroo central early/late in day. Lots of junk lying around nr motel so shut down and move a/c by hand near fuel shed. Mundrabilla reportedly best restaurant on hwy. But, need to walk over hwy from strip - no access for mogas. Madura is 2-3km from motel - no access for mogas - can get very muddy. Cocklebiddy is usually out-of-wind and fairly rough. No avgas but mogas access is good. Caiguna strip is concave in cross-section and fills with water after a storm. Need to check it with roadhouse. It can become unusable in half an hour! Also, it has a huge mob of resident skippies and they don't move for anything less than RFDS. You can get mogas by taxying out thru the gaps in bush to E side of avgas parking area. Balladonia Roadhouse strip is quite good, even with some rain. Only the NW/SE strip is serviceable tho. No fuel access. Myrup, (YMYU), is a welcoming place, close to NE side of Esperance town. 14/32 and 04/22. NB: 04 is RH ccts. Gravel surfaces can be loose so take usual care of aircraft. Hope that informs. happy days,

We are still battling with Part 61 - 3 years after introduction. Nearly 600 pages of it - plus another 500 pages of telling us how-to-suck eggs in the Manual of Standards. Kiwis did it in 90 odd pages and the FAA took 110 pages if I'm correct. CASA is just part of the 'Canberra culture' of omnipotence, that we all distrust so intensely. What irks me so much is that we, as a nation, spend squillions on unproven, exorbitantly priced military hardware: then send our ADF over to the US to learn how to operate it. But, we can't follow the undeniable world leader in civil aviation, (the FAA): nooo, the air is different here! Grrrrr!

Agree. Time-to-solo is one such number that seems to be taken as an indicator of either a student pilots' genetic ability to fly, or, the instructors' unfortunate inability to 'teach'. It's a much more complex process. I'm doing more and more GA to RAAus conversions. The time it takes for these, (to reach a safe solo competency), varies from 1 to 6 hrs. (and that's on what I'd say was a very easy-to-fly aircraft). Not surprisingly, those pilots with more hours, and more currency cope best. In terms of safety consciousness: the variation is great. Some older pilots have a most impressive airmanship/safety approach while a few are living in the kick the tyres and light the fires era. Recently qualified pilots generally follow the book insofar as preflights, checklists etc - but without experience, they miss a lot of the 'airmanship' qualities that experience brings. We have to build their competencies by on-the-job learning: which is the proven way pilots really learn. happy days,

Thanks for posting the links and article Dipacro and FT. My digital skills are clearly limited. Yes, it is a case of basic manufacturing jobs going offshore: but the upside is that the Australian models will be fitted out in Cowra, and then there is the future airline training school which could well be located in Cowra. Actually a good location for it. My model 610 is now up to 350 hrs and is proving a really good trainer. No problems at all. Students really like it. happy days,

Some of you may have missed this full page article on the progress of Brumby Aircraft in building in China. File is too large for me to upload to recavn. Nothing in the article that hasn't been publicly said before, but there isn't yet a firm date for completion of the 1st model 610 for the Aussie market. The emphasis on the 'pilot training' market might mean that these aircraft will be absolute lookalikes bound for the big flight schools. To make models attractive to Aussie pilots, I'd suggest that customising will be necessary. The model bound for an 'airline pilot' training school will be somewhat different to an aircraft for an Aussie RAAus or GA school, eg, with a more advanced IFR capable EFIS and avionics suite. Existing Aussie flight schools in Class G are not going to require much higher end stuff for many years to come. I wonder if my Brumby will become an 'A' model, (for 100% Aussie built) - and the next production run carry the 'C' designator? <joke!> happy days,

Publication Frequency. Monthly publication is way too frequent for our organisation. Other pilot groups have pruned back their frequency to bi-monthly, and I believe that is more than adequate. Pilot Competency articles should have more prominence. At risk of incurring the wrath of RAAus Ops - they should be producing more content for our qualified pilots. Maybe the 180+ CFI's in RAAus could be co-opted to produce sound content in conjunction with RAAus Ops? I'd be more than willing to contribute. Travel articles by pilots are needed, but are often a 'skim' job: RAAus members would be much better informed by these articles if more details on flight planning, weather forecasts vs actual, aircraft performance data, eg power settings,fuel burns, oil burn were included. Fair Comment articles by members with a strong opinion on current affairs, or on organisation policy, should be encouraged - not disparaged. Airshow and Fly-in articles should be retained - and only the best pics used, with a bit more detail in the captioning. Safety? Frankly - I'm over all the preaching stories purporting to inform us on how we can be safer. A good safety culture begins in the flight school and this is where RAAus needs to focus. Train the trainers. It's too late when pilots are out 'home alone' and have already developed 'attitude' towards safety. Board matters? I for one would like to read a little more of what matters to members. Paper or digital? The paper copy survives on and on. It's the best advertising that RAAus can have and if it was really distributed far and wide by members - would increase both flying and RAAus awareness. Sure, a good website is necessary: perhaps the current copy of the magazine can be located on there for non-members to read...at least a few pages of anyway? happy days,

Consultation is what bureaucrats do after the review has been completed. Sir Humphrys' legacy lives on in Canberra!

'Fishtailing' in the V35's can be minimised by keeping a little rudder input applied. Seemed to work for me when doing lots of long descents from 9500 into Perth/Jandakot way back when. That involved many trips up to Carnarvon and Geraldton in a S35, a V35, V35/2. 170KTAS on descents does seem to create a fishtail and it's worse in the usual rough air in that region.There is a parallel in using rudder input when flying in trail/line astern, and finding that you wander left & right behind lead. Works there too except you need to watch for the small drag effect taking you out of position. happy days,

Looks like a Beech Travelair with those 180HP engines. Travelairs were a nice aircraft to handle except loading needed to be watched. Back in the early 70's, I did get to fly an old, (1962?) Baron,(VH-UPJ), that had started its' life with Connellans in Alice Springs. It was designated a Beech 95/55, and had 260HP engines in blunt nacelles like this 'V' tailer has. It was more a 150KTAS aircraft if I remember - quite a slug compared to the 190KTAS C55 model that I was lucky to graduate onto. happy days,

'Low level' means 500' agl or below. There really isn't any other level you should fly at any CTAF except 500' agl, or 1000' agl - unless you are a 150+kt type, in which case it's 1500' agl. There is an increased element of separation risk when aircraft fly between these levels. If you are doing circuits, and calling low level downwind runway 00 touch & go - it would be expected that you were accurately flying at 500' agl - not anywhere else that you chose at random. The runway should 'intersect' with either the strut, (midway out), in high wing, or somewhere along the aileron,(low wing), at the same point regardless of your height above ground level. ie, same if you are at 200' 500' 750' or 1000' agl. The only difference is that you are further away from the runway with increasing height above ground. The issue of whether you fly rectangular circuits, or 'racetrack' type circuits really depends on your height agl. If you are flying 'genuine' low level, (<500' agl), then racetrack is necessary to fit the approach into such a limited distance from top of descent to threshold. happy days,

Yes, agree Nev - it all depends..... as the saying goes. From cruise, I'm a believer in pulling a steep turn 40-45 aob, towards where the most promising forced landing area is: this also mirrors a full reversal or 90 degree turn after efato. Speed converted to direction with minimal height loss. One thing that I see consistently in both RAAus and GA BFR's is pilots allowing the nose to drop before bleeding the IAS back to best glide = a huge loss of altitude while they fiddle & fart about with an emergency checklist, or carry out vital actions. This will kill you. I really emphasise the need to be heading toward safety at best glide before fiddling with your head inside! happy days,

The C210 is definitely the one to gain time on. Much better 'value' than a 206, which itself is much better value than a C182. Generally, you will need 500PIC before anyone will allow you onto twins - possibly more if the company has a stiff insurer. You may not have any opportunity to further your FIR up north because there are no flying schools, and those there are - probably wouldn't see value in having to supervise a G3. (take it you mean instructor rating and not instrument rating?) If it's an instrument rating single engine - that's not much use to you up north either as you can't do IFR charter in singles. A NVMC is often just about as useful as it allows you to fly a single without pax for repositioning, or a freight run. I think you'll find that, after your C210 'investment' - the next best spend might just be to gain a single engine turbine qualification. Again. you'll probably not access a turbine in real life until after 500 - 750 PIC, but it's an investment in your professional future. happy days,

Just a few comments - but not in respect of this accident. In low level flying, (say 200-300ft agl, with a following wind of 10-15 kts, your ground speed can be quite confronting, especially if there are obstacles, (or limitations such as crowds or buildings), ahead that require a relatively tight turn. I notice many low level students try to reduce power,(and as a result, IAS), when flying with a 15-20 kt following wind. A low level instructors' duty is to teach them never to mistake groundspeed for flying speed. In a low level, 'base' to final turn, with a following wind, there is a need to (1) begin the turn early to avoid displacement (2) extend your lift flap before the final turn - I'll extend full flap if it's onto a short final from say 200ft agl, (3) keep your nose down, and (4) use power to hold or increase IAS in the descending turn. The essential is to actually increase your airspeed so that the aircraft does not stall in the turn. Better to be low but flying with good command than to lose it without space for recovery. The early turn onto final ensures that a dynamic stall is avoided if the pilot loads up the wing in the turn: all because they are trying to avoid the further track displacement that happens with a following wind. This means the aircraft is being flown fairly aggressively with lots of scenery above the panel - and many pilots develop 'ground rush' when this happens. This can be trained out for most. Prior planning, (the good old PPPPP acronym again), is your most important pilot input at low level: you need to visualise the turns in respect of the terrain and winds, well before having to fly the procedure. Good power management and a light touch on the controls which avoids developing much G loading in all the manoeuvres are important learnings. Last second changes of plan or activity are to be avoided. Of course, all of the above must happen with the ball precisely in the middle. There's no place for out-of-balance flying at low level! Trust this helps some of you. As I've said before: low level training is a very useful achievement and I'd encourage pilots to do some wherever there is a qualified instructor. Why not do part of it a s your BFR - it counts?

The number of 'airshows' has dwindled in recent years. Issues of insurance, and CASA oversight are given as reasons: but are there other compelling reasons to avoid 'public' gatherings? A public airshow requires that CASA be involved with full details of every display, right down to individual pilot experience. A 'display' pilot form is required. The airshow display zone is required to be several hundred meters away from any spectators, and display aircraft must not even turn over the crowd. All sound safety stuff. Sometimes CASA has been known to veto certain proposed displays, or require significant alteration of them. This has been one of the reasons that a 'non-professional' display pilot might quit an intended display: thus limiting airshow displays to the truly professional performer. This comes at a cost to diversity in an airshow schedule, and an increase in costs. A 'private' fly-in will usually be held on private property - given that it's impossible to prevent the public from viewing a fly-in which is being held on/at a public airport. So, pilots need to be considerably more prudent if conducting any form of 'display' flying if the fly-in is at a public airport which will remain 'open' to both air and ground traffic. Over a private fly-in, pilots still need to comply with certain fundamental rules - it's not just open slather. Reckless operations are no more acceptable in private than public, and duty-of-care still applies. Pilots should be licenced, rated, or endorsed in all respects - (aeros, low flying etc). They should be truly competent to operate the aircraft, and to perform the flight activity (CASR 61.385) The 90 day currency rule also applies. Passenger carrying rule applies. About the only thing that a private flyin offers is that CASA isn't involved - directly. But, whatever activities happen at a private flyin, you can be assured that CASA will act to investigate any 'complaints' or 'enquiries' about the flying that occurred on that day. And, you'd be surprised to hear that, sometimes, the enquiries' received by CASA are made by persons who were invited to the fly-in by an attending pilot. So, the moral of this aspect is: avoid inviting outsiders and non-flying friends-of-friends to a private flyin where some flying might be rather 'boisterous'. Be cautious! But that's enough from me: what do you think? Some actual experiences with the repercussions from over exuberant flying at either an airshow or flyin would be welcome. happy days,

See new thread under 'Discussion'

My guess is that the man from CASA was more interested in whether you flew the hi/lo speed passes at 50ft rather than 500ft. Once you decide to fly below 500ft - holding an ag, or a low level rating is a necessity. At a private fly-in, you don't have to be cleared by CASA to participate as a display pilot: but you do need to ensure your display doesn't endanger any other traffic or pose a potential danger to the non-aviation public present. If you plan to 'demo' an aircraft at a fly-in, be sure that you comply with the Regs, and all your paperwork is legit. happy days,

Can't say I've ever seen more Regs busted in one flight than that one. A scenic flight? You've got to be joking!

Correct. Code-of-conduct for the privileged and connected - criminal law for the peasants!

Thought it time to summarise my experiences in 20 yrs test flying and instructing in RV4, 6, 6A, 7, 7A, 8, 8A, 9, 9A, and 10. Not yet in a 12 or 14. 1 - think about these numbers. We try to make 500fpm approaches in most aircraft - either by using less flap +/- power, or more flap + power. Whatever it takes to give you a more or less constant angle of approach. Most RVs will glide at around 70KIAS clean and give you about 600fpm descent rate - higher with a CSU operating in fine pitch due low power. RV pilots need to adjust their approaches to the magic 500fpm for consistency. 2 - the 9 and 9A have longer wings, more flap area but only 30deg deflection at fully extended. Over the fence at 60KIAS and closed throttle is perfectly safe in all but 15+ crosswinds. Plenty of elevator command remains and they are definitely the easiest/safest of all the RVs. The VANS factory staff love the 9 series. 3 - all the other RV's that I've flown have 40deg flap settings and this does give you a fairly steep approach with closed throttle - steeper if you have a CSU! Preferably hold 60/65 and a touch of power so that you stabilise at 500fpm on mid final. 4 - the early 6 and 6A had smaller rudders and less elevator command. Quickly learned to either keep 65-68KIAS down to the flare (throttle closed)...and avoid highish roundouts. Safest has always been to hold a touch of power on through the roundout and close it , (judiciously), in the flare. In the tailwheel 6 the most reliable landings are, (surprise,surprise), done from a relatively low height flare to a full stall in the 3 point configuration. A bit more 'squirrely' on bitumen, but a delightful feeling of achievement on grass! Wheeling the 6 takes a whole lot more skill and it's something that requires a heap of practice. The technique I teach is for another thread so will stick to the lower speed + near full back stick types. In the 6A - it's even easier than the 6: once in the flare and in ground effect, slowly close what little power remains and increase the angle of attack with more elevator input. You will touch down on the mains with the nosewheel well up. Keep it there! A really good practice lesson is to continue to hold the nosewheel off until you feel the elevator losing command - then add just enough power to allow you to hold the nosewheel off and you can taxy the full length of the runway like that. Teaches you a 'feel' for your pitch inputs in an RV. 5 - in all of my time in RV's, I've never scraped the aft undersection of a wheel spat, nor heard of anyone who has. What does happen with RV's is that the small tyres and infrequent utilisation of most aircraft, allows tyres to deflate. This allows chafing of the tyres on the folded under lower edges of the wheelspat and gives you an alarming smell of burning rubber on taxy. Pump them up to 40psi, or if you don't have a gage - to no more than 75mm of 'flat' on the ground and very little sidewall bulge. One of the most important maintenance items . 6 - RV aircraft are very sensitive in pitch. Pilots need many hours adapting their control stick 'feel' so that they have reduced it down to using just 3 fingers and their wrist locked down against their inner knee. The aircraft can't be landed lightly and with a delicate touchon of mains until pilots have practised and practised their power x attitude basics. And after you master the art of smooth safe landings - try formation in your RV. That requires a whole new control 'feel'. Then after that - try low level in the RV, because without mastery of your pitch inputs you will never be safe either close to the ground or your mates in formation. In summary, RV's are fantastic aircraft which have to be flown with skill and with due regards to the laws of aerodynamics. Don't skimp on either good instruction or on diligent pracrice. happy days,

Strip was gouged out by wind & rain when I went through in October. Quite rough in parts with 'sand bars' in others. The taxiway, (formerly 04/22), can be very rough as the surface has been eroded by wind: but you may find it's your only choice in a rugged N wind. YNUB is a horribly windy location and can really test your skills. btw - don't use the N-S sealed road as they get rather upset about that. happy days,

Poor technique: #1 - not flying the flare to a full stall, #2 - braking too hard, #3 - taxying too fast for the surface

The Caseys' Cessna 180 currently resides in Bunbury, WA. It appears to be very well kept, and, hopefully survives SIDs. I think it's as early model as far back as 1953-56?

At the risk of offending anyone, I feel a comment or two is appropriate from an industry oldie who is still fully engaged in both RAAus and GA. 1. Have never thought the 'Advanced Pilot' thingy was useful. (somewhat agree with post #5). Under CASR 61.385, we have to ensure that any pilot meets competency standards for any aircraft they are qualified on, doing any manoeuvres they are qualified on, in any airspace they are qualified for........ This is non-negotiable, and complements the 90 day currency rule in any class of aircraft. 2. Many instructors suffer from a personal 'competency' deficiency because they don't actually get out to do what I'd term 'personal skills practice.' It detracts from their instructing efficacy, but only $$$ can ensure that an instructor maintains skills - one can't use the students time for this!! This has long been a problem in GA as well. 3. Yes, students are trained to meet a described competency. They only maintain this 'standard' if they fly fairly often, and are diligent in their flight. Unfortunately, (as Nev points out), many don't fly enough, and their skills go backwards. (I once had a PPL who turned up for a BFR and had his 3 previous reviews all on the same page - mine just fitted on!His skills were declining and he quit soon after the review). 4. Mentoring? Well, many old instructors spend a lot of time with new students that isn't in the syllabus, and it's foc. We also 'check-fly' with RAAus pilots who feel they need a 'once-over' of their competency. (cost = a good bottle of local vino). I do quite a bit of 'mentoring' for our local RV pilots as well. It's a good idea, but for it to be effective, you need older, (retired or semi-retired) senior instructors who love their flying and love the opportunity to teach. I regard mentoring of already qualified pilots as 'advanced training' because I put them through some rigorous low level, short field,and tight low speed manoeuvring - not just more-of-the-same-old. Formation is also a good 'advanced' skill if done thoroughly and frequently. 5. As to the 'sky-God' comments.......give us a break. Most of my generation got over that in the 60's and 70's. Why do you think the instructor average age is so high? It's because instructing is a poorly paid job - unappealing to younger people with family commitments, but doable for retirees who do it for cost or love - whichever is the least. There is a near-future 'crunch' coming where there will be a lot less flight schools and available instructors on the map of Australia. A bit more respect for the profession might be in order. 6. Currency improves competency. Plan to fly - and fly to plan. Aviation is rather akin to golf - you can never break your handicap without training and practice. happy days,